This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-12-08 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| To recall, the amounts involved in Pantaleon, Jr. were manifestly in excess of P22,000.00. We opined that the Sandiganbayan correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua and that the ISL is inapplicable since it is an indivisible penalty. The Court's pronouncement is consistent with the earlier cases of People v. Conwi, Jr.,[16] People v. Enfermo,[17] and People v. Pajaro, et al.[18] as well as with the fairly recent case of Zafra v. People.[19] | |||||
|
2015-08-18 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| For purposes of admission to bail, the determination of whether or not evidence of guilt is strong in criminal cases involving capital offenses, or offenses punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment lies within the discretion of the trial court. But, as the Court has held in Concerned Citizens v. Elma,[30] “such discretion may be exercised only after the hearing called to ascertain the degree of guilt of the accused for the purpose of whether or not he should be granted provisional liberty.” It is axiomatic, therefore, that bail cannot be allowed when its grant is a matter of discretion on the part of the trial court unless there has been a hearing with notice to the Prosecution.[31] The indispensability of the hearing with notice has been aptly explained in Aguirre v. Belmonte, viz.:[32] | |||||